| Message ID | 1503925133-30722-1-git-send-email-fabrice.gasnier@st.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add support for STM32 vrefbuf regulator | expand |
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:58:52PM +0200, Fabrice Gasnier wrote: > + ret = clk_prepare_enable(priv->clk); > + if (ret) { > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "clk prepare failed\n"); If you're printing an error include the error code, it'll help users figure out what went wrong. > + dev_info(&pdev->dev, "STM32 VREFBUF initialized\n"); This is just noise, remove it. > +static int __init stm32_vrefbuf_init(void) > +{ > + return platform_driver_register(&stm32_vrefbuf_driver); > +} > +subsys_initcall(stm32_vrefbuf_init); Why is this at subsys_initcall()?
On 08/29/2017 08:57 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:58:52PM +0200, Fabrice Gasnier wrote: > >> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(priv->clk); >> + if (ret) { >> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "clk prepare failed\n"); > > If you're printing an error include the error code, it'll help users > figure out what went wrong. Hi Mark, Thanks for reviewing, I'll add it in v2. > >> + dev_info(&pdev->dev, "STM32 VREFBUF initialized\n"); > > This is just noise, remove it. I'll remove it in v2. > >> +static int __init stm32_vrefbuf_init(void) >> +{ >> + return platform_driver_register(&stm32_vrefbuf_driver); >> +} >> +subsys_initcall(stm32_vrefbuf_init); > > Why is this at subsys_initcall()? > Several consumers depend on it when it's being used, among which: STM32 internal ADC and DAC, but also external components. Purpose is to ensure it's ready before these drivers gets probed, instead of being deferred. Is it ok to keep it ? Please let me know, Best Regards, Fabrice -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:11:24AM +0200, Fabrice Gasnier wrote: > On 08/29/2017 08:57 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:58:52PM +0200, Fabrice Gasnier wrote: > >> +static int __init stm32_vrefbuf_init(void) > >> +{ > >> + return platform_driver_register(&stm32_vrefbuf_driver); > >> +} > >> +subsys_initcall(stm32_vrefbuf_init); > > Why is this at subsys_initcall()? > Several consumers depend on it when it's being used, among which: STM32 > internal ADC and DAC, but also external components. Purpose is to ensure > it's ready before these drivers gets probed, instead of being deferred. > Is it ok to keep it ? No, that's not OK - just let deferred probe handle it. The same thing applies to all regulator usage.
On 08/30/2017 05:02 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:11:24AM +0200, Fabrice Gasnier wrote: >> On 08/29/2017 08:57 PM, Mark Brown wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:58:52PM +0200, Fabrice Gasnier wrote: > >>>> +static int __init stm32_vrefbuf_init(void) >>>> +{ >>>> + return platform_driver_register(&stm32_vrefbuf_driver); >>>> +} >>>> +subsys_initcall(stm32_vrefbuf_init); > >>> Why is this at subsys_initcall()? > >> Several consumers depend on it when it's being used, among which: STM32 >> internal ADC and DAC, but also external components. Purpose is to ensure >> it's ready before these drivers gets probed, instead of being deferred. >> Is it ok to keep it ? > > No, that's not OK - just let deferred probe handle it. The same thing > applies to all regulator usage. > Hi Mark, Ok, I'll update this in v2 as well. Thanks, Fabrice -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html